Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee's oil-milling activity was the same business as its earlier trade in grains and oilseeds so as to entitle it to relief under section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: Relief under section 25(4) depends on identity between the business charged to tax under the earlier Act and the business succeeded to. The Court treated the real question as whether dealing in oilseeds could be equated with manufacture of oil. It held that buying and selling oilseeds is a trading activity, whereas crushing oilseeds and manufacturing oil is a distinct manufacturing activity involving different commercial character, processes, and business operations. On the Tribunal's findings, the oil mills were not merely an extension of the old grain and oilseed business, and no error of law was shown in that finding.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to relief under section 25(4), because the oil-milling business was not the same business as the earlier business of dealing in grains and oilseeds.
Ratio Decidendi: For relief under section 25(4), the business succeeded to must be the same in substance as the business previously taxed; a trading business in oilseeds is not the same as a manufacturing business in oil.